Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
To:     keescook@chromium.org
Cc:     catalin.marinas@arm.com, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com,
        hca@linux.ibm.com, jarmo.tiitto@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, masahiroy@kernel.org, maskray@google.com,
        morbo@google.com, nathan@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com,
        oberpar@linux.ibm.com, ojeda@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        samitolvanen@google.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        wcw@google.com, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR (Re: [GIT PULL] Clang feature updates for
 v5.14-rc1)
In-Reply-To: <20211005131015.3153458-1-dja@axtens.net>
References: <202106281231.E99B92BB13@keescook>
 <20211005131015.3153458-1-dja@axtens.net>
Date:   Wed, 06 Oct 2021 00:45:45 +1100
Message-ID: <874k9v60vq.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

>     Kconfig: Introduce ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR and CC_HAS_NO_PROFILE_FN_ATTR
>     
>     We don't want compiler instrumentation to touch noinstr functions,
>     which are annotated with the no_profile_instrument_function function
>     attribute. Add a Kconfig test for this and make GCOV depend on it, and
>     in the future, PGO.
>     
>     If an architecture is using noinstr, it should denote that via this
>     Kconfig value. That makes Kconfigs that depend on noinstr able to express
>     dependencies in an architecturally agnostic way.
>
> However, things in generic code (such as rcu_nmi_enter) are tagged with
> `noinstr`, so I'm worried that this commit subtly breaks things like KASAN on
> platforms that haven't opted in yet. (I stumbled across this while developing
> KASAN on ppc64, but at least riscv and ppc32 have KASAN but not
> ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR already.)

Hmm, so it looks like the commit doesn't affect how noinstr is compiled
(which means I have another different issue to contend with!), but...

> As I said, I haven't been able to find the original thread - is there any reason
> this shouldn't be always on? Why would an arch not opt in? What's the motivation
> for ignoring the noinstr markings?
>
> Should generic KASAN/KCSAN/anything else marked in noinstr also have markings
> requring ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR? AFAICT they should, right?

I'm still curious about all of these questions. I get
CC_HAS_NO_PROFILE_FN_ATTR, but I don't get ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR.

Kind regards,
Daniel

>
> Kind regards,
> Daniel